Picard - Remembrance

[Riedquat]

The joy in owning an original baseball card isn't just the acquisition of wealth. If Nog can afford that card, it probably isn't worth a huge amount (he's bright but he's just a kid), and Sisko probably didn't think of it as an investment. I mean, in a broad sense, owning pretty much anything means owning wealth (debt-ridden properties, etc., aside), but Picard could have meant the acquisition of wealth in general. A lot of people are motivated by $ (not excepting myself -- I like money at least as much as the next guy), but Sisko wasn't looking at the card in terms of how much he could get for it on Ebay.

The desire for wealth isn't just the desire for more money, it's the desire for more stuff that you can't currently have - like the card. For some people money may be an end in its own right but really for most people it's a means to an end, and an end that can never really be satisfied. Putting aside the issue of getting enough just to survive (which isn't an issue for anyone in the Federation in normal circumstances) the drive to have more can never be satisfied - no amount of money is ever enough, and there'll always be something unobtainable simply because there isn't an infinite amount of everything - like original baseball cards (even if identical copies could be churned out). It's a pity Trek didn't address how society has managed to deal with that, an instinct to always get more that probably developed during a time when it was hard enough to get enough, so there was no mechanism in place for evolving a limit to that drive.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Hmm yeah. That old quote. Interesting to point out that governments or NASA theoretically aren't driven on the acquisition of wealth as it would pertain to building the Enterprise per se. These types of projects are never for private enterprising. Then again, it could be no different than a cruise ship for all she knows, so I guess the question is pretty straight forward.

So Black Mariah was asking what the ship all costs. To which, Picard alludes to the quote.

I'm starting to think that Picard is referring ultimately to the accounting aspect of money. All the metal and materials would have a formulated market value. However, when any government finds a stockpile of resources in the ground, they typically have parental rights to it. Though instead of auctioning off the rights to mine and sell the materials, The federation just takes it and give it to their own engineers to build stuff with.

[Fianna]

The desire for wealth isn't just the desire for more money, it's the desire for more stuff that you can't currently have - like the card. For some people money may be an end in its own right but really for most people it's a means to an end, and an end that can never really be satisfied. Putting aside the issue of getting enough just to survive (which isn't an issue for anyone in the Federation in normal circumstances) the drive to have more can never be satisfied - no amount of money is ever enough, and there'll always be something unobtainable simply because there isn't an infinite amount of everything - like original baseball cards (even if identical copies could be churned out). It's a pity Trek didn't address how society has managed to deal with that, an instinct to always get more that probably developed during a time when it was hard enough to get enough, so there was no mechanism in place for evolving a limit to that drive.

There are people today who practice minimalism, forgoing many luxuries and worldly possessions, because they find living a simple life to be sufficient for their happiness, and trying to expand what they have would likely run into the "mo' money, mo' problems" issue.

Of course, what qualifies as a "simple life" is relative. By the standards of ye olden times, many of those minimalists are still living like kings (or at least well-off barons). In Star Trek's opulent future, what's considered a life of minimal luxury would probably still be pretty darn idyllic by our standards, and enough to satisfy most people's cravings.

Though the baseball card is a bit different from normal desire for luxury. There the desire isn't to see the card or hold the card or experience the card in some way, but to own the card, and to own this specific card rather than any others, because you've assigned it an arbitrarily heightened value. Unlike a desire for tastier foods, softer sheets, more convenient entertainment, and the like, I think that's more of a culturally ingrained attitude rather than something inherent in human nature, and is the sort of thing humanity was supposed to have grown out of.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Specifically you're alluding to goods with intrinsic value, as opposed to collectibles where the value is generated through mostly scarcity (and legitimate demand of course).

[DrWheelz]

I realize I'm coming in way too late on this (maybe I'll repost this comment on the next STP review topic), but I just had a horrible thought:

We've seen this era of Trek before, and it looked nothing like this.

Voyager:Endgame showed us a future Starfleet set just 2 years before this show starts that is essentially unchanged from TNG era Starfleet, but now it's fundamentally different.

Y'all...

Janeway messed up the timeline so badly that this show is the result.

YOU MANIACS!!! YOU SCREWED IT UP!!! DAMN YOU!!! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!

[Darth Wedgius]

The joy in owning an original baseball card isn't just the acquisition of wealth. If Nog can afford that card, it probably isn't worth a huge amount (he's bright but he's just a kid), and Sisko probably didn't think of it as an investment. I mean, in a broad sense, owning pretty much anything means owning wealth (debt-ridden properties, etc., aside), but Picard could have meant the acquisition of wealth in general. A lot of people are motivated by $ (not excepting myself -- I like money at least as much as the next guy), but Sisko wasn't looking at the card in terms of how much he could get for it on Ebay.

The desire for wealth isn't just the desire for more money, it's the desire for more stuff that you can't currently have - like the card. For some people money may be an end in its own right but really for most people it's a means to an end, and an end that can never really be satisfied. Putting aside the issue of getting enough just to survive (which isn't an issue for anyone in the Federation in normal circumstances) the drive to have more can never be satisfied - no amount of money is ever enough, and there'll always be something unobtainable simply because there isn't an infinite amount of everything - like original baseball cards (even if identical copies could be churned out). It's a pity Trek didn't address how society has managed to deal with that, an instinct to always get more that probably developed during a time when it was hard enough to get enough, so there was no mechanism in place for evolving a limit to that drive.

I think Picard's statement can be interpreted as the continuing desire to accumulate wealth, and that that's different from wanting a few objects.

But I see how it could be interpreted your way, too.

[CharlesPhipps]

I think in Raffi's case, she's just lashing out and materialism is all she has left after losing both her family as well as position in Starfleet. The fact that she's the equivalent of a conspiracy theorist living in a trailer in the middle of a national park says just about everything.

[Link8909]

I think in Raffi's case, she's just lashing out and materialism is all she has left after losing both her family as well as position in Starfleet. The fact that she's the equivalent of a conspiracy theorist living in a trailer in the middle of a national park says just about everything.

Pretty much, I was thinking that it wasn't materialism but her addiction to SnakeLeaf, but thinking more that's is a sort of materialism, I think anyway, but I still think she's an interesting character, and I like the growth she went through in Season 1, and I do sympathies with her.

Also, while she called her house a "hovel", personally it's not a bad setup, considering that you wouldn't need an income to simply survive in the Star Trek future, and Replicators and life-time guaranteed power cells are most likely handed out, and you can't argue that she pick a great spot to set up, the weather is controlled and free wi-fi, and she grows her weed.

But ultimately this isolated lifestyle leads to procrastination, and I found out that SnakeLeaf induces paranoia, so yeah, in this case the cons do out way the pros.

I think Picard's statement can be interpreted as the continuing desire to accumulate wealth, and that that's different from wanting a few objects.

But I see how it could be interpreted your way, too.

Indeed, personally I've not been a fan of the abolishment of currency established in the TNG era, as this brings up logistical questions that don't get a solid answer, and I've always gone with that within the Star Trek future, humanity's attitude towards money had changes, while still being used to facilitate trade is not in on itself the goal to accumulate more by any means, so within Star Trek it's never a question of how profitable will doing something be.

[CharlesPhipps]

There's an old adage, "It is easier to imagine the end of humanity than the end of capitalism."

But I admit I kind of imagine the Federation like a kibbutz. Which in this case means that they share in their wealth internally but are very capitalistic and trade orientated as a group.

They have a currency and trade items but are post-scarcity to the point that the majority of humans never actually think about money to any extent.

[Artabax]

The joy in owning an original baseball card isn't just the acquisition of wealth. If Nog can afford that card, it probably isn't worth a huge amount (he's bright but he's just a kid), and Sisko probably didn't think of it as an investment. I mean, in a broad sense, owning pretty much anything means owning wealth (debt-ridden properties, etc., aside), but Picard could have meant the acquisition of wealth in general. A lot of people are motivated by $ (not excepting myself -- I like money at least as much as the next guy), but Sisko wasn't looking at the card in terms of how much he could get for it on Ebay.

The desire for wealth isn't just the desire for more money, it's the desire for more stuff that you can't currently have - like the card. For some people money may be an end in its own right but really for most people it's a means to an end, and an end that can never really be satisfied. Putting aside the issue of getting enough just to survive (which isn't an issue for anyone in the Federation in normal circumstances) the drive to have more can never be satisfied - no amount of money is ever enough, and there'll always be something unobtainable simply because there isn't an infinite amount of everything - like original baseball cards (even if identical copies could be churned out). It's a pity Trek didn't address how society has managed to deal with that, an instinct to always get more that probably developed during a time when it was hard enough to get enough, so there was no mechanism in place for evolving a limit to that drive.

People like sugar, salt and fat. We like them so much that we eat too much. For Millenia we were hunter gatherers and these precious things were in short supply. There was no Evolutionary need for satiety, for the feeling of having had enough chocolate. You drink water until you've had enough, you eat bread until you've had enough.
There ain't no such thing as enough chocolate.

Likewise if everyone did had enough stuff, we would continue to need more stuff because 50 years of having enough stuff is nothing compared to 100,000 years of NOT having enough stuff.